Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> But the proposed cpio format (AFAIK) has ASCII numbers, which is what you
> were originally complaining about. I see that cpio(1) says that "by
> default, cpio creates binary format archives... and can read archives
> created on machines with a different byte-order".
>
> Excluding alignment issues (which can also be handled relatively easily),
> is there a reason why we chose the ASCII format over binary, especially
> since the binary format _appears_ to be portable (assuming endian
> conversions at decoding time), despite warnings to the contrary?
>
The "binary" format of cpio is *ancient*. There is no binary equivalent
to the "newc" (SVR4) format.
> The binary format reports lots of "truncating inode number", but for
> the purpose of initramfs, that is not an issue as we don't anticipate
> more than 64k files. I don't know why the /sbin test is so heavily
> in favour of the newc (ASCII) format, but I repeated it to confirm
> the numbers.
There are way too many other problems with the ancient cpio formats. Not
an option.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 15 2002 - 21:00:54 EST